Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

被引:5
|
作者
Cheng, Jing [1 ]
Zhang, Haidong [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Liu, Hailin [6 ]
Li, Junying [7 ]
Wang, Hom-Lay [8 ,10 ]
Tao, Xian [9 ,11 ]
机构
[1] Xiamen Med Coll, Stomatol Hosp, Dept Gen Dent, Xiamen Key Lab Stomatol Dis Diag & Treatment, Xiamen, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Dept Periodontol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Natl Ctr Stomatol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Natl Clin Res Ctr Oral Dis, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Natl Engn Lab Digital & Mat Technol Stomatol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[6] Jingpin Med Technol Beijing Co Ltd, Beijing, Peoples R China
[7] Univ Michigan, Dept Biol & Mat Sci & Prosthodont, Sch Dent, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[8] Univ Michigan, Sch Dent, Dept Periodont & Oral Med, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[9] Stomatol Hosp, Dept Prosthodont, Xiamen Key Lab Stomatol Dis Diag & Treatment, Xiamen Med Coll, Xiamen, Peoples R China
[10] Univ Michigan, Dept Periodont & Oral Med, Sch Dent, 1011 North Univ Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[11] Xiamen Med Coll, Stomatol Hosp, Dept Prosthodont, 1309 Lvling Rd, Xiamen 361008, Fujian, Peoples R China
关键词
accuracy; digital impression; intraoral scanning; stereophotogrammetry; MULTIPLE IMPLANTS; PART I; MISFIT; PROSTHESES; POSITIONS; SURVIVAL; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/clr.14252
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. Materials and Methods: An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. Results: Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05). Conclusions: Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:560 / 572
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study
    Geramipanah, Farideh
    Sadighpour, Leyla
    Payaminia, Leila
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DENTAL RESEARCH, 2023, 9 (06): : 983 - 992
  • [42] Trueness of full-arch dental models obtained by digital and conventional impression techniques: an in vivo study
    Onbasi, Yonca
    Abu-Hossin, Sabrin
    Paulig, Maria
    Berger, Lara
    Wichmann, Manfred
    Matta, Ragai-Edward
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01):
  • [43] Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
    Robert Nedelcu
    Pontus Olsson
    Ingela Nyström
    Andreas Thor
    BMC Oral Health, 18
  • [44] In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants
    Roig, Elena
    Garza, Luis Carlos
    Alvarez-Maldonado, Natalia
    Maia, Paulo
    Costa, Santiago
    Roig, Miguel
    Espona, Jose
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (02):
  • [45] Solid index impression protocol: a hybrid workflow for high accuracy and passive fit of full-arch implant-supported restorations
    Mandelli, Federico
    Zaetta, Antonio
    Cucchi, Alessandro
    Mangano, Francesco Guido
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERIZED DENTISTRY, 2020, 23 (02) : 161 - 181
  • [46] Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
    Nedelcu, Robert
    Olsson, Pontus
    Nystrom, Ingela
    Thor, Andreas
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2018, 18
  • [47] Comparison of Different Intraoral Scanners With Prefabricated Aid on Accuracy and Framework Passive Fit of Digital Complete-Arch Implant Impression: An In Vitro Study
    Fu, Xiao-Jiao
    Liu, Min
    Shi, Jun-Yu
    Deng, Ke
    Lai, Hong-Chang
    Gu, Wen
    Zhang, Xiao-Meng
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [48] Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of full-arch scans by Cerec Primescan AC: an in vitro and in vivo comparison
    Keul, Christine
    Guth, Jan-Frederik
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERIZED DENTISTRY, 2022, 25 (01) : 17 - 25
  • [49] Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions
    Akkal, Ozcan
    Korkmaz, Ismail Hakki
    Bayindir, Funda
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2023, 15 (04): : 179 - 188
  • [50] Full-arch intraoral scanning: comparison of two different strategies and their accuracy outcomes
    Mandelli, F.
    Gherlone, E.
    Keeling, A.
    Gastaldi, G.
    Ferrari, M.
    JOURNAL OF OSSEOINTEGRATION, 2018, 10 (03) : 65 - 74